Why the Ruler's Sin-Offering Must Be a Male Goat

"A male goat" (Leviticus 4:23), and not a female goat, and not its substitute. Now is this not a matter for logical inference? If the ordinary individual, whose offering is not the same for all the commandments as it is for the offering of the Day of Atonement, nonetheless has it the same for all the commandments as it is for the offering of a single distinct commandment; then the ruler, whose offering is the same for all the commandments as it is for the offering of the Day of Atonement, should certainly have his offering be the same as that of a single distinct commandment. The anointed priest disproves this, for his offering is the same for all the commandments as it is for the Day of Atonement offering, yet his offering for all the commandments is not the same as that of a single distinct commandment. But you may answer: it is not so. If you spoke of the anointed priest, who brings neither this nor that from the flock, will you say the same of the ruler, who brings both this and that from the flock, so that since he brings both from the flock, his offering for all the commandments is the same as for a single distinct commandment? Therefore Scripture teaches "a male goat," and not a female goat, and not its substitute. "Male" and not female. "Unblemished" and not one with a defect.